This invention relates to a down-line transcription system used by attorneys for reviewing real-time transcription during a proceeding such as a trial or deposition; and, more particularly, it relates to a method and apparatus for providing context sensitive searching of a current transcript, other case evidence and case law which may be locally or remotely located.
As is well known, legal proceedings such as a deposition or trial involve the participation of, among others, an examining attorney who asks questions and a witness who must answer (“testify”) while under oath. These answers (“testimony”) are recorded by the court reporter, along with the associated questions and related conversation, in a digitally coded shorthand format using a stenographic recorder. Recent versions of stenographic recorders communicate the digitally coded short-hand to computer aided transcription (“CAT”) systems which attempt to automatically transcribe the coded shorthand into the exact text of words spoken. The CAT systems transmit the transcribed exact text along with occasionally interspersed coded shorthand (when automated transcription fails) down-line for real-time viewing by attorneys as well as by other participants involved.
As is also well known, during depositions and trial, attorneys often find it necessary to have immediate full-searching access to various information such as the current transcript, other case evidence and case law. However, because of the current requirement of each searching front-end associated with such information, immediate access often proves impossible, and attorneys are generally forced to forego their needed access. In many cases, this proves to be detrimental.
For example, instead of having immediate access to case law, attorneys are required to log-in to remote databases, and, after entering a series of preliminary library selections, are faced with formulating and typing a search which they hope will locate the desired case law. The formulated search must follow a syntax which is unique to the specific database being searched. In addition, the syntax usually includes a boolean format involving the use of parentheses, boolean “and” and “or” type logical word operators, and a plethora of other specific syntax commands used to limit a given search. The entire process is very time consuming. Furthermore, because the first search formulation often does not yield the desired results, the attorney must reformulate and manually re-enter the reformulated searches several times before locating the desired information.
Additionally, natural language searching front-ends have been added which, in a very complex fashion, attempt to ascertain actual search intent from an attorney's English language search request. Using the natural language front-end, after logging-in to the remote case law database and selecting the appropriate libraries, the attorney formulates a search in the form of a typical English language sentence or sentences. The search is processed in a remote main-frame computing environment, and the case law offering the best fit is delivered to the attorney. Local case law databases are also available but require the same preliminary library selection delays as with remote database searching. In addition, because of the computing power necessary, the natural searching front-end does not run locally. Therefore, for locally stored case law, the problems associated with the use of a boolean front-end must still be faced.
To search case evidence pleading and other work product, the attorney faces similar delays. First, case evidence is usually stored remotely at the attorney's law offices. At best, this information is available via a dial-up communication link. To search the case evidence, the attorney must first selectively access the different databases, word processing, case management, and deposition review software packages which were used to create or store the specific case evidence, pleadings or other work product. Thereafter, the searching front-end associated with the chosen software package requires the attorney to identify the appropriate database and formulate a search using a syntax unique to the chosen software package.
With all of the different searching front-ends, preliminary searching setup requirements, various searching front-end differences and requirements for formulating and typing in a search, searching is generally a time consuming endeavor requiring a great deal of interaction between attorneys, support staff, and search databases. Compounding the problem, if the attorney decides to search for the same information across many databases, individual searches are required for each such database. As a result, when time is of the essence, the attorney usually has no choice but to ignore the impractical possibility of conducting a search. Unfortunately, time is generally always of the essence in the trial or deposition environment, where searching could prove to be of ultimate value.
Moreover, currently available searching front-ends do not provide an attorney with sufficient information about the database being searched to appropriately formulate or modify a search. Boolean type searching front-ends often yields literally hundreds of hits, yet such searching front ends provide the attorney no indication as to how to appropriately alter the search or how to provide a successful search in the first place. Similarly, current natural language front-ends provide no indication of: 1) how effective a search formulation may turn out to be; 2) the computed significance weighting chosen for a given word; or 3) how to change a search to produce better results. As a result, not only do searches require multiple passes, but the attorney is also forced to review documents which have very little chance of yielding the desired search result.
Currently facing the foregoing problems are hundreds of thousands of attorneys in the United States alone. Hence, it would be highly desirable to solve the foregoing variety of problems enumerated in conducting legal proceedings such as a deposition or trial by providing a common searching front-end which provides seasonable response time with minimal attorney interaction.
It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus which aids the attorney by permitting a common searching front-end which does not require formulation of a search during a trial or deposition.
It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus which provides searching capability based on contextual text received for other purposes.
It is an additional object of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus which provides for simple search formulations based on manipulation of previously available text received for alternate purposes.
It is an additional object of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus which provides real-time database feed-back regarding the characteristics of a database in view of a potential or current search formulation.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus which aids the attorney by providing a common searching front-end which detects the context of a search without requiring interactive log-in, library selection, or other preliminary searching requirements.